Talk:Nacionalista Party

encyclopedia (?)
This looks more like the website of the political party. See for example the last two sections "Rennaissance" and "Why Nacionalista". Magalhães 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NPlogo.jpg
Image:NPlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

History
Most of it appears to have been replicated from party's website. I believe of this section first three parts are superfluous. Also, the brief description are a bit too biased and needs revision. Needsmorehotsauce (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New electoral performance tables
I have created a new more presentable format for the electoral performance tables. The changes I've made are: I have created tables for the Nacionalista Party, Liberal Party, Lakas–CMD, LDP, PDP–Laban, KBL, PMP, NPC, Aksyon Demokratiko, PRP and Reporma. If you need to make your own, the Nacionalista Party tables would serve as a good template as they are the most comprehensive and include every election in national history. Katya2017 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "number of votes" columns from all tables. With respect to presidential elections, these numbers are meaningless when presented without the total number of votes cast. With respect to legislative elections, these numbers are completely meaningless as parties rarely stand candidates in all electoral districts or consistently field complete Senate slates. The percentage share of votes and number of seats won is more informative in each case.
 * The "seats after" column of the Senate elections has been removed. These appear to be original research at best and pure speculation at worst.
 * For the sake of clarity, only presidential candidates who stood under the banner of the corresponding political party are included. Independent candidates and political endorsements of other candidates are not reflective of the electoral performance of the respective endorsing party so have no natural place in that party's electoral performance tables. Endorsements, if they are to be included at all, should be placed in the history section of the party article and accompanied by a source – they are rarely ever sourced.
 * The "outcome of election" column for the presidential elections replaces the "won/lost" matrix with the winning candidate and party as this is more informative. For legislative elections, the ambiguous "led/joined/split majority/minority/independent minority" matrix has been replaced with the party, coalition or ticket that won a majority or plurality of votes as this provides a more definitive answer to the question of who won the election.


 * Number of votes are standard fare in political party tables in other countries; the percentages are there to give an idea on how good the candidate/party performed.. These have to have the same look, and your edits deviated from the format. Your format also has egregious MOS:COLOR violations. If anything, I would've wanted the French style as seen in Socialist Party (France), which doesn't deviate much from what was done here.
 * The culmination of legislative elections are leadership elections in the respective chambers, something that was wiped out with this format. The party getting outright majority, leading or joining the majority, or was split, was a far better explanation on how the election ended. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, it turns out you were the same person who unilaterally reverted the discussed to death political party colors update some years ago. Now, you unilaterally did this. In the spirit of collaboration, I suggest to revert back to the old format. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Howard the Duck, I haven't edited with this account in more than 18 months. I know that when it comes to the politics of the Philippines I'm inevitably going to run in to you so I decided to return to this account without obligation to do so as a courtesy and for the sake of transparency. If you disliked the changes I made, you could have recognised that I made the edits in good faith to improve the readability and utility of the visual hemorrhage than existed before, plainly listed your concerns and suggested improvements and then engaged in conventional Wikipedia argument until consensus is reached.
 * Instead you decide to bring up a grievance you have about good faith edits I made three-and-a-half years ago, passive aggressively demand that I abandon all of the work I've done on these tables and throw around accusations of "unilateral editing" like it's some sort of crime. Are you shitting me? Every bold edit to Wikipedia is a unilateral edit. If my good faith editing is so outrageous to you, I recommend you grow a spine. If you're incapable of leaving a three-and-a-half year grudge at the door so we can constructively work towards presenting the data better than we were before, I suggest you exempt yourself from this discussion altogether. There are other editors around who can weigh in on these tables without the animosity you bring.
 * You're saying you want the total vote column restored for all elections, the percentages restored for legislative elections, the colour highlights removed and the expression of the election result altered, correct? Katya2017 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the previous tables. The new version is not an improvement in any way, and really makes it more of an eye sore than anything else, while removing pertinent information. Example of how this could be done more correctly, if the current format is found to be unsatisfying, can probably be gleaned from looking at other similar pages, ex. Labour (UK), Conservatives (Canada), Greens (Germany); and dozens upon dozens of others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

New proposal for electoral performance table
Given the problems with both the old and the new format, I propose to use this new table instead (Yes, I ripped it off from the French electoral performance format). Below is an example for the presidency, also applicable for the VP. For the other elections (e.g. Senate, HoR), we can just remove the candidate column and add an indicator if they're part of the majority or minority. Any other suggestions would be welcome. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 05:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd been working on a new table based on the designs of the French/ British/ German electoral tables linked above and welcome any feedback, RandomCanadian, Itsquietuptown. I've added it directly to the article as I believe it settles all the concerns raised earlier.
 * The vote totals and vote percentages are restored and a more typical colour scheme has been adopted. I've put the original result column for the legislative elections back in place too but I don't approve of it at all and don't understand the original rationale behind it. Sometimes the result is expressed in terms a won/lost system while at others it's expressed in terms of a majority/minority system. This inconsistent switching between the two systems is confusing rather than useful.
 * Further, the majority/minority alignment of a party in the aftermath of an election, particularly in the case of Third Republic and Fifth Republic midterm elections, has nothing at all to do with how the party performed in the election and everything to do with the pre-existing position of the party with respect to the continuing administration. It's interesting that the Liberal Party joined the minority bloc after the 2019 elections but I don't see how that's pertinent to their electoral performance let alone a fair summary of the result of the election. It's just irrelevant information. Katya2017 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Won/lost and majority/minority are analogous to the won/lost and government/opposition terms used in parliamentary elections in other countries. See for example the British example you cited for the Socialist Party (France). I would have suggested for it to be simpler to use just Majority/minority/something else, instead of won/lost for parties that won/lost outright the election.
 * Some further comments include:
 * We don't need percentage points change. It's irrelevant, moreso in Fifth Republic presidential elections where parties don't put up candidates all the time.
 * Rank: I guess this is relevant for elections that go to a runoff; in the Philippine case it's irrelevant due to the FPTP electoral system. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Redux
Ok, now we have a mess on our hands. Here are some comments: Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The current setup gives the impression that the president and vice president are elected as a tandem. Filipinos know this is not true, but foreigners do not necessarily know this.
 * Solution: Split into two tables
 * Colors for winning, losing, majority, minority and split -- these are too similar to colors for NP and LP
 * Solution: Don't use colors
 * Party colors used for shading violate MOS:COLOR
 * Solution: Use party colors only in charts and diagrams, not to shade entire cells in tables.
 * Results ambiguous if not won/lost for single winner elections. For example in 1998, it says "Joseph Ejercito Estrada (LAMMP)". For someone ignorant of things, you'd be stumped on what this is, only to realize Estrada won. (This analogous to showing which teams won in the NBA Finals in "Playoffs" section in articles such as "List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons".
 * Solution: Merge the cells in the row; using the old format: "None; won"
 * Too many explanatory footnotes!
 * Solution: As solution immediately above. We don't want the reader going through footnotes if it can be presented in the table per se!
 * In legislative elections elsewhere, coalitions are depicted in results column. These are articles about parties; presumably, the parties themselves win, lose, split or whatever.
 * Solution: Use the old format of "winning", "losing", "split", etc. Remember, the aim of legislative elections in presidential systems is to have a candidate from that party elected as Senate president/speaker.
 * In legislative elections here, the Senate and House are in one table, leading the impression that they are elected jointly.
 * Solution: Split in to two tables. This can also made into a future case if the Nacionalista Party formally adopts a party-list, so we can use two types of elections in the House table, as seen in articles such as PROMDI. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Modified table proposal
I diasgree on not using colored won and lost cells, given that in similar formats from other countries, they are still used even if some parties used similar colors. This also makes distinguishing the won elections from the lost much easier. In the legislative table, Outcome Option A uses Won/Lost/Split while Option B uses Yes2/No2/Partial. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)